"This list will help non-scientists to interrogate advisers and to grasp the limitations of evidence, say William J. Sutherland, David Spiegelhalter and Mark A. Burgman."

Differences and chance cause variation.No measurement is exact. Bias is rife.Bigger is usually better for sample size.Correlation does not imply causation.Regression to the mean can mislead.Extrapolating beyond the data is risky.Beware the base-rate fallacy.Controls are important.Randomization avoids bias.Seek replication, not pseudoreplication.Scientists are human.Significance is significant.Separate no effect from non-significance.Effect size matters.Study relevance limits generalizations.Feelings influence risk perception.Dependencies change the risks.Data can be dredged or cherry picked.Extreme measurements may mislead.

I've been watching the Science Channel all weekend and, I swear, I'm getting spaced out (no pun intended) over having all this information poured into my brain and trying to comprehend over and over again what a "trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion" of anything means.

Exactly what I was gonna say. This seems more like "20 reasons to be skeptical," which is also good! Proper use of skepticism and understanding statistics helps in identifying truths, or at least that which is as close to factual as anything can be in our universe. But the source and spread of claims are equally important these days, and usually the first indicator of whether something is worthy to even consider being skeptical about.

Also a lot of what the OP posted is rubbish and only applies to a lot pseudo science out there.

As a mathematician, I can tell you that mathematical rigour is so stringent that you simply cannot make unsustainable claims in mathematics or you'll be found out very very very quickly. There's a reason why very very very few people undertake mathematics at the research level like I did, I guarantee you it's not easy!But at least you have no fallacies such as bias and what not (statistics is not mathematics, probability on the other hand is mathematics). In fact, mathematicians can even compute distributions for correlations of variables which tell you how they move together on avaerage, formidable and EXTREMELY DIFFICULT results indeed.

aguyinbrist saidAlso a lot of what the OP posted is rubbish and only applies to a lot pseudo science out there.

As a mathematician, I can tell you that mathematical rigour is so stringent that you simply cannot make unsustainable claims in mathematics or you'll be found out very very very quickly. There's a reason why very very very few people undertake mathematics at the research level like I did, I guarantee you it's not easy!But at least you have no fallacies such as bias and what not (statistics is not mathematics, probability on the other hand is mathematics). In fact, mathematicians can even compute distributions for correlations of variables which tell you how they move together on avaerage, formidable and EXTREMELY DIFFICULT results indeed.

Why is it rubbish? There are a lot of fields, especially related to health and fitness (e.g. nutrition, biochemistry, physiology) that are legitimately scientific, but highly susceptible to error and misinterpretation. Not everything is as exact as mathematics. That doesn't make it "pseudo science." It just means a healthy skepticism is warranted, which was the OP's point. I thought the list was very useful.

aguyinbrist saidAlso a lot of what the OP posted is rubbish and only applies to a lot pseudo science out there.

As a mathematician, I can tell you that mathematical rigour is so stringent that you simply cannot make unsustainable claims in mathematics or you'll be found out very very very quickly. There's a reason why very very very few people undertake mathematics at the research level like I did, I guarantee you it's not easy!But at least you have no fallacies such as bias and what not (statistics is not mathematics, probability on the other hand is mathematics). In fact, mathematicians can even compute distributions for correlations of variables which tell you how they move together on avaerage, formidable and EXTREMELY DIFFICULT results indeed.

If you would single out which of those points were 'rubbish and only applies to pseudo science out there' that might be kind to the non-initiated.

aguyinbrist saidAlso a lot of what the OP posted is rubbish and only applies to a lot pseudo science out there.

As a mathematician, I can tell you that mathematical rigour is so stringent that you simply cannot make unsustainable claims in mathematics or you'll be found out very very very quickly. There's a reason why very very very few people undertake mathematics at the research level like I did, I guarantee you it's not easy!But at least you have no fallacies such as bias and what not (statistics is not mathematics, probability on the other hand is mathematics). In fact, mathematicians can even compute distributions for correlations of variables which tell you how they move together on avaerage, formidable and EXTREMELY DIFFICULT results indeed.

If you would single out which of those points were 'rubbish and only applies to pseudo science out there' that might be kind to the non-initiated.

It was with regards to mathematical sciences. In mathematics there are not MANY interpretations, there is usually ONE interpretation and it is the CORRECT one.

if it seems like a situation is intuitively harmful or bad for the environment, and someone will profit from the opposite answer (that it is not harmful) and they paid for the study that declared something unharmful...it will generally be wrong.

ie. we can burn all the coal we want and nothing bad will happen...all the studies by the coal industry say so.

or

fracking is completely neutral as to the influence on the local water supply...just like the fracking industry says. (just ignore those flames shooting out of your shower)

if it seems like a situation is intuitively harmful or bad for the environment, and someone will profit from the opposite answer (that it is not harmful) and they paid for the study that declared something unharmful...it will generally be wrong.

ie. we can burn all the coal we want and nothing bad will happen...all the studies by the coal industry say so.

or

fracking is completely neutral as to the influence on the local water supply...just like the fracking industry says. (just ignore those flames shooting out of your shower)

aguyinbrist saidAlso a lot of what the OP posted is rubbish and only applies to a lot pseudo science out there.

As a mathematician, I can tell you that mathematical rigour is so stringent that you simply cannot make unsustainable claims in mathematics or you'll be found out very very very quickly. There's a reason why very very very few people undertake mathematics at the research level like I did, I guarantee you it's not easy!But at least you have no fallacies such as bias and what not (statistics is not mathematics, probability on the other hand is mathematics). In fact, mathematicians can even compute distributions for correlations of variables which tell you how they move together on avaerage, formidable and EXTREMELY DIFFICULT results indeed.

aguyinbrist saidAlso a lot of what the OP posted is rubbish and only applies to a lot pseudo science out there.

As a mathematician, I can tell you that mathematical rigour is so stringent that you simply cannot make unsustainable claims in mathematics or you'll be found out very very very quickly. There's a reason why very very very few people undertake mathematics at the research level like I did, I guarantee you it's not easy!But at least you have no fallacies such as bias and what not (statistics is not mathematics, probability on the other hand is mathematics). In fact, mathematicians can even compute distributions for correlations of variables which tell you how they move together on avaerage, formidable and EXTREMELY DIFFICULT results indeed.

But this isn't about mathematics. Science is an empirical pursuit.

Yes. It's about scientific skepticism and ignorance among politicians. I'm a cynic though. If a politician has a vested interest in the outcome of a scientific study, no amount of scientific training or empirical evidence is going to stop them from spinning the result to their advantage. Science is a human endeavour, but politics is an unashamedly human endeavour!

Brian Cox has just informed me that in all the uncountable years in the life of the universe, it's only the middle 1 trillion trillion trillion (I lost count of how many times he said "trillion") trillionth that can support life. Interesting.

aguyinbrist saidAlso a lot of what the OP posted is rubbish and only applies to a lot pseudo science out there.

As a mathematician, I can tell you that mathematical rigour is so stringent that you simply cannot make unsustainable claims in mathematics or you'll be found out very very very quickly. There's a reason why very very very few people undertake mathematics at the research level like I did, I guarantee you it's not easy!But at least you have no fallacies such as bias and what not (statistics is not mathematics, probability on the other hand is mathematics). In fact, mathematicians can even compute distributions for correlations of variables which tell you how they move together on avaerage, formidable and EXTREMELY DIFFICULT results indeed.

If you would single out which of those points were 'rubbish and only applies to pseudo science out there' that might be kind to the non-initiated.

It was with regards to mathematical sciences. In mathematics there are not MANY interpretations, there is usually ONE interpretation and it is the CORRECT one.

Based on this thread, I'm not impressed with the social and conversational skills of mathematicians.

aguyinbrist saidAlso a lot of what the OP posted is rubbish and only applies to a lot pseudo science out there.

As a mathematician, I can tell you that mathematical rigour is so stringent that you simply cannot make unsustainable claims in mathematics or you'll be found out very very very quickly. There's a reason why very very very few people undertake mathematics at the research level like I did, I guarantee you it's not easy!But at least you have no fallacies such as bias and what not (statistics is not mathematics, probability on the other hand is mathematics). In fact, mathematicians can even compute distributions for correlations of variables which tell you how they move together on avaerage, formidable and EXTREMELY DIFFICULT results indeed.

If you would single out which of those points were 'rubbish and only applies to pseudo science out there' that might be kind to the non-initiated.

It was with regards to mathematical sciences. In mathematics there are not MANY interpretations, tere is usually ONE interpretation and it is the CORRECT one.

I trust the original points were formulated with regards to empirical science. As you know, it is ill-advised to refer to that as "pseudo science" given its inability to provide with 'definitive' conclusions (or given anything else in general).